Somebody Think Of The Children

While it’s really hard to argue against not blocking RC material, where is the “strong, overwhelming case” to block it? Has free access to the “Peaceful Pill Handbook” caused a jump in people suiciding? Graffiti documentary “70K” is RC, so does that mean graffiti sites will be banned? Do people tag more because becuase they can view galleries of graffiti pieces on the web?

So even if we accept RC stuff should be blocked, why the “other types of content” next? It’s legal to get elsewhere, so what the flub is difference with the web (seeing as we keep being told by those who want the web censored that the web is no different to a film or book or whatever)?

By Matthew on Feb 23, 2009

Matthew, it’s actually really easy to argue against blocking only RC material.

Every time the Minister picks a “worse” category of material to restrict the list to, he’s making the list more “dangerous” when it’s leaked.

At the moment I think we’re pretty sure that almost all of the list is either material that’s legal in Australia or material that’s legal in its country of origin but RC in Australia due to differences in classification guidelines (e.g., porn featuring adults who look younger than 18).

A list like that is relatively harmless when it’s leaked or reverse engineered. The only real consequence that its publication would have would be embarrassment for the Government when Australians saw how widely ACMA was casting its net.

If the list is restricted to purely RC, or purely CP, for example, then that picture changes. When it’s leaked or reverse engineered, its publication will be a serious event worthy of some pretty pointed questions directed at the politicians who decided to distribute it to 700 ISPs and any of their customers who chose to reverse-engineer it.

As I said at Kickstart ’09 yesterday, it’s all very well for someone to say that responsibility for publication lies with the publisher, but that’s a pretty serious oversimplification. You can’t argue for years about how great it’d be to do something like this then disclaim all responsibility when it turns bad and blows up in everyone’s face.

– mark

By Mark Newton on Feb 23, 2009

“(e.g., porn featuring adults who look younger than 18).”

Is that really RC in Australia?

By HTA on Feb 23, 2009

“…the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults”

Who ARE these reasonable adults?

Consider that the OFLC’s rejection of the Viva Erotica case means that any recent data (the Nielsen 2006 poll) about what the majority of reasonable adults think does not apply. Nope, the average “reasonable adult” at the OFLC operates according to “community standards” in Tasmania, circa 1984.

Note also that spanking and bondage are considered to be “abhorrent” under the law, even though it’s legal to DO these things. Even the film “Pirates” was RC for a bit because it contained a sword fight scene.

RC is pretty much anything slightly kinky, really.

By Karen on Feb 23, 2009

RC is also any computer game that fails to attain an MA15+ rating. There are a lot of them, including the uncensored version of Grand Theft Auto III, Fallout 3 before they changed the name of one of the drugs and FEAR 2 – these aren’t minor titles.

By Pharaoh on Feb 23, 2009

The case for blocking RC content hasn’t been presented. Nor will it be.

This isn’t about any classification scheme, it’s about blocking content that the Australian government doesn’t like (which appears to be anything more challenging than Disney).

I wish I could filter them out.

By Stuart Anderson on Feb 23, 2009

@HTA: Yes, porn featuring models who look under 18 is RC in Australia.

The relevant phrase in the classification guidelines is “Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.”

Where the models look young, the Classification Board reads that bit as “… offensive … depictions involving a person who … appears to be … under 18 years,” and labels the result as RC – Child Depiction.

– mark

By Mark Newton on Feb 23, 2009

This scheme just gets worse as time goes by.
The fools like Conroy are just NOT listening to us.
It’s plain that this fatally flawed system is going to be bulldozed through against all opposition.
Get a proxy, Tor or similar NOW.
We’re gonna need them.

I will NOT accept or abide by the law in this case.
Someone once said ‘When law becomes oppression, resistance becomes mandatory’ or similar.

That time is now.

By Max on Feb 24, 2009

@Max

What makes you think you will be able to even access a proxy of any type not approved by THEM?

IP address blocking is common now as you know. If you can find the ip of a suitable proxy, so can THEY.

DNS request redirection has been done in the past. In its simplest form the server filters UDP packets destined for port 53 and changes the destination IP to that of an APPROVED server.

In short, you won’t even get near the cloud without THEIR approval. If THEY want total control, THEY will have it. Get over it and stop talking tripe!

By Bill on Feb 24, 2009

“This isn’t about any classification scheme, it’s about blocking content that the Australian government doesn’t like (which appears to be anything more challenging than Disney).”

Stuart

==========

I wish I could find the study I was reading last month about the furry phenomenon and how many self-proclaimed furries say their habit originated from the humanoid animals in Disney movies. A very interesting study to say the least.

By Vanessa on Feb 24, 2009

“@HTA: Yes, porn featuring models who look under 18 is RC in Australia.

The relevant phrase in the classification guidelines is “Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.””

I see, thanks.

I don’t know if any of you saw the film Towelhead, but it had an (18 year old) actress acting (quite convincingly) as a 14 year old who was raped (repeatedly).

There was nothing terribly explicit about it, but you would think that under that rule it would be RC. I saw it in a Melbourne cinema… I think it was MA.

By HTA on Feb 24, 2009

I’m not sure if I’ve made the point here before or not, but this reconfirms my concerns that what will be restricted is very hetrocentric.

Non-vanilla sex is always seen as more offensive. As you point out ‘spanking’ has been considered offensive before, and I’m sure (male) gay sex is restricted more often than straight sex

By Hammy on Feb 24, 2009

@Hammy:

The leaked Finnish blacklist seemed to have a disproportionate quantity of gay porn on it, so you’re probably not too far off the mark.

By Mark Newton on Feb 24, 2009

In the end the system will be a copy of existing one in China.

Also perfectly legal sexual practices, like bondage, will be illegal to view. Where is the logic?

or appears to be, a child under 18 years.
So they are of legal age to act in porn movies but those people are then punished by RC because of their visual appearance? I thought all people are equal by law, so all 19 years olds should have the same rights.

By SkipEU on Feb 25, 2009

@ Bill.

I don’t post tripe. If you choose to see it that way, that’s your loss.
The net will always work around this sort of interference. It was designed that way.
Any tech-savvy user will not find it too much of a challenge to circumvent this.
They do it in China etc.
We’ll do it here.

By Max on Feb 25, 2009

Max, I read Mark’s preparation speech on the Whirlpool forums earlier this week, and I found it interesting that he said that the Government does not have any plans to prevent circumvention. If this is the case, then what is the point of having a mandatory filter at all?

By Glenn Petrie on Feb 25, 2009

@Max

My understanding of the Chinese system is that it is NOT total control. It consists of part filtering, part tracking/monitoring, and the threat of retaliation for those who don’t play by the rules.

If Glen is correct, then they simply criminalise the act of probable circumvention. I’ll let you contemplate the possible consequences of that. Fear is a wonderful means of control and it’s cheaper than NetEnforcer and PeerApp.

While a few net-savvy people will be able to get around such an imposition, the vast majority will not. The net only works as a forum for democratic discussion and opinion sharing because _everyone_ has easy access. A few thousand geeks bypassing the filters don’t count. They can just prosecute one every few months to maintain the fear factor and their mission is accomplished.

Max, my appologies for the strident reply but assuming total control is not possible is simply naive. Is it probable? Unlikely and thank you Glen for reminding me that such control is not necessary.

By Bill on Feb 26, 2009

Bill, I think you hit the nail on the head with this:

“The net only works as a forum for democratic discussion and opinion sharing because _everyone_ has easy access. A few thousand geeks bypassing the filters don’t count.”

That, IMO, is what this is really all about. The web levelled the publishing playing-field – to some degree. That helped to democratize the transmission and development of ideas and opinion. That is what they want to roll back.

Who’s ‘they’ in this context? I have an open mind whether Rudd and Conroy are part of this agenda at all – or whether they are merely ‘pawns’. In either case, they are relatively small cheese. The folk pushing to roll back the power of the web worldwide are more sinister.

Perhaps getting this censorship measure through is the price Labor has been required to pay for staying popular via benign mass media coverage? Stick with this policy… or the switch will be thrown and bye-bye Mr Rudd the popular?

Who knows? What has become clear by now is that the web censorship policy lacks any serious rationale in its own terms. It makes sense only in the broader context, which is not being discussed openly by proponents.

Having Labor lead the charge on this policy – as opposed to the Conservatives – is also not as unexpected as one might imagine at first. It is often the way that changes one might least expect to be led by the right-wing are achieved through the right-wing – and vice versa.

The NSW Unsworth Government foundered on the rock on gun law reform. Enter Howard, stage right, who swept gun law reforms through – and gained extra electoral support from the ‘centre’ for doing so, leaving the gun lobby no-where else to go.

The idea, I think, was that Labor would do the same with web censorship from stage left – and the Tories would fall into line. But it seems, to date, the Conservatives have not cut any deals on this – and are naturally enjoying the bloodsport of watching Rudd & co enrage much of its own natural support base defending a superficially irrational and essentially indefensible policy.

By Syd Walker on Feb 26, 2009

@Syd Walker

Who is “they”? It could be government, the bureauracy, or some other player unknown at this time. Damned if I know.

I do think the CP stuff is a red herring and a very smelly one at that. I don’t think Rudd/Conroy are setting the agenda here. My gut feeling is that it ties back to the AUSFTA and AFACT/RIAA. There is no real evidence to support this, other than a letter from AFACT to ACMA proposing a filter which would catch porn as well as copyright infringement.

For me, the federal opposition has been too quiet on this whole issue. How could they miss such an opportunity to sling dirt at Labor given that the government has been coping a real hammering over this and Conroy is such an easy target. The opposition front bench could tear Conroy to shreads and they leave it to some back-bencher? I think not! The other thing is that in 2003 Richard Alston put ACMA out of reach of FOI. Their excuse was “to protect the children”. Makes me think the agenda has been set and Labor has no option but to follow through.

I don’t think that porn needs complex filters. There just isn’t that much of it out there any more. Certainly not matching the figures often quoted by the inimitable Ms McM. Policing copyright infringement does need sophisticated filters so we come back to the AUSFTA which must be fully implemented very soon and a large part of all FTAs around the world has been copyright and patent related.

How’s that for a conspiracy theory? One day we’ll all have an Ah-Ha moment and wonder why we were all so b….y stupid. I just hope it does not come too late.

This stuff is way too complicated for main-stream media. It can’t be expressed in a headline and a short paragraph so they aren’t interested.

By Bill on Feb 26, 2009

So what’s your REAL AGENDA here Mike.
You don’t like the idea of IP Address blocking because it might restrict your personal access to porn on the net or other such things, is that it?
So what’s your background, your history, Mike? It’s a legitimate question because in my experience blogs like yours are usually run by people with a vastly different agenda and purpose to that which they give as the public reason for their blog.
You say you don’t like censorship, so tell me why and please don’t give me that rubbish about interfering with personal freedoms and the like. The fact is you choose to be part of and live in Australian society [I'm presuming you DO ACTUALLY LIVE IN AUSTRALIA but I haven't seen any evidence of that on this blog] – that being so, you’ve already made a decision to abide by it’s rules consciously or unconsciously. Now, if you don’t like the government placing restrictions on what can or cannot be accessed on the net, then go live in another society whose government doesn’t impose such restrictions.

To be frank, all I’m reading here, is a lot of moaning and whinging from a few selfish individuals whose only motivation seems to be that of putting their own self interests ahead of everyone elses And I have to wonder if these same posters feigning outrage at the government’s plans are also the same selfish individuals who blatantly ignore speed limits on the roads and put other people’s lives in danger, because “speed limits are simply just another form of government action purposely designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals”. I reckon I might well be right.

By BEAR on Mar 7, 2009

You still haven.t answered my question Mike.
Which is, what’s your background? Why so reluctant to tell us?

By BEAR on Mar 8, 2009

@BEAR

Mike has already explained that he lives in Australia and doesn’t wish the government blocking access to legal material.

Until such time as “RC” material is deemed illegal then from a legal perspective (and that’s what we are covering) is all you need to know.

By Bob Bain on Mar 8, 2009

Obviously there are many, many reasons why this proposal is deeply flawed. There is one very fundamental one, however, which I haven’t heard discussed yet.

This proposal relies, at it’s core, on a process of submissions to ACMA in order for items to be reviewed and taken down. That means someone has to phone, email or fax a link to a person at ACMA, who will then put it on the queue for review.

Even putting aside all other objections and technical flaws, surely this in and of itself effectively precludes the proposal from being effective?

If I wanted to run a CP site unbothered by this filter, I would simply set up a non-offensive page with a single button on it. The target destination URL behind the button would change every day automatically – click it, you get your CP. Submit to ACMA and it is deemed RC? No problem, there’s a new URL the next day.

Obviously there’s also a broader issue that the volume of new pages daily is beyond even the collective effort of all the citizens of Australia put together to review and submit.

The net effect (if you’ll excuse the pun) is that if this system is implemented, non-savvy parents such as those on the SBS Insight program will think ‘phew, now we have a filter, I can relax’, when actually the filter will have very, very little effect at all.

By Ben McEvoy on Apr 5, 2009

I support the ‘idea’ to minimise termed ‘RC’ internet material that could inadvertently be digested by underage children affecting younger generations to decay our moral and ethical fibre, and also the ‘idea’ of banning content which may `lead on outcast societal beings such as pedophiles and other estranged ‘violent types of individuals’(small percentage) that leave indecent moral footprints. I think if it could be achieved it would be good for the common Australian who wants the best for their children of future generations.

I make this point though and it cannot be overlooked.

If these are the two major reasons for a CR banning and induction of ISP filters with no guaranteed success rate based on test performances the average person agrees with, that lead to the demise and cease of freedoms in out country that we have all come to know. Democratically legal content such as for example a displeasing violent scene caught and uploaded on utube of a dog savaging a person …or a man fetishing a leather boot and consequently slapping his partner in un-atoned bliss, then we cannot in my opinion, make legislation with RC filters, as common rights to other materials, as expressed above would be taken from us the common decent, moral tax paying individual. Until government could adopt a software to do the job of ‘a gatekeeper of horrid and minority porn’ without affecting the previously affected freedoms of Australians, then nothing should be done, as it jeopodises the main importance of a free democratically structured society, leaving only in its wake a disgruntled, oppressed society that cannot create of their own will their own virtue.

Not to mention the fact the government has much bigger objectives, no doubt like the one to yet pawn(not pioneer) many new structures like the RC / ISP filtering as a way to cease any ability for the average Australian internet savy businessman, to make any amount of money out of a now 2 billion per year + adult industry.

Simply put if the government tomorrow allowed porn or adult web site hosting for 18+ material, within a year I and every internet professional could cash in big time with large revenue in their pockets. Like pot or media networks of US, if they cant make the money distributing it, nobody can!

It seems that its ok to show people dying in the twin towers, or on the ‘Underbelly series’ of episodes making the cool, the one who kills, deals Heroin and etc, though a law that takes one of the only pleasures contemporary people seek…come on how ludicrous!

Stalk your pedophiles and heroin barons but “not I” sais the typical Australian!

By Joe Didly on Jun 4, 2009

@ Bear

You compare looking at porn or drugs on the internet to something like speeding? You really are an ignorant fool. Its people like you who blatently do things before thinking that ruin it for the rest of us. I’ll tell you my agenda, I live in Australia and I use the internet to reasearch everything and anything, and it is the best information tool that we have. The point thats been made before, is why censor it on the internet and not in public libraries, seminars, why not go the whole way.
You cant get in your car and speed anywhere but a race track you gimp, and the last time i checked, my healthy obsession with porn in my living room only helps my relationship with my girlfriend
If the peddo’s out there dont get their fix online, imagine all the hidden camera’s being bought for public toilets and alike…

By Max on Dec 21, 2009